Kidney and Cardiovascular Effectiveness of Empagliflozin Compared With Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.

Placebo-controlled trials of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors demonstrate kidney and cardiovascular benefits for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). We used real-world data to compare the kidney and cardiovascular effectiveness of empagliflozin to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is), a commonly prescribed antiglycemic medication, in a diverse population with and without CKD. Using electronic health record data from 20 large US health systems, we leveraged propensity overlap weighting to compare the outcomes for empagliflozin and DPP4i initiators with type 2 diabetes between 2016 and 2020. The primary composite kidney outcome included 40% estimated glomerular filtration rate decrease, incident end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality through 2 years or censoring. We also assessed cardiovascular and safety outcomes. Of 62,197 new users, 20,279 initiated empagliflozin and 41,918 initiated DPP4i. Over a median follow-up of 1.1 years, empagliflozin prescription was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 0.87) than DPP4is. The risks for mortality (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92) and a cardiovascular composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or all-cause mortality (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95) were also lower for empagliflozin initiators. No difference in heart failure hospitalization risk between groups was observed. Genital mycotic infections were more common in patients prescribed empagliflozin (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.58 to 1.88). Empagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome in patients with CKD (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.88) and those without CKD (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94). In conclusion, the initiation of empagliflozin was associated with a significantly lower risk of kidney and cardiovascular outcomes than DPP4is over a median of just over 1 year. The association with a lower risk for clinical outcomes was apparent even for patients without known CKD at baseline.

Home Oxygen After Hospitalization for COVID-19: Results From the Multi-Center OXFORD Study.

BACKGROUND: In the first months of the pandemic, prior to the introduction of proven-effective treatments, 15-37% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were discharged on home oxygen. After proven-effective treatments for acute COVID-19 were established by evidence-based guidelines, little remains known about home oxygen requirements following hospitalization for COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multi-center cohort study of subjects hospitalized for COVID-19 between October 2020-September 2021 at 3 academic health centers. Information was abstracted from electronic health records at the index hospitalization and for 60 d after discharge. The World Health Organization COVID-19 Clinical Progression Scale score was used to identify patients with severe COVID-19. RESULTS: Of 517 subjects (mean age 58 y, 47% female, 42% Black, 36% Hispanic, 22% with severe COVID-19), 81% were treated with systemic corticosteroids, 61% with remdesivir, and 2.5% with tocilizumab. About one quarter of subjects were discharged on home oxygen (26% [95% CI 22-29]). Older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02 per 5 y [95% CI 1.02-1.02]), higher body mass index (aOR 1.02 per kg/m2 [1.00-1.04]), diabetes (yes vs no, aOR 1.73 [1.46-2.02]), severe COVID-19 (vs moderate, aOR 3.19 [2.19-4.64]), and treatment with systemic corticosteroids (yes vs no, aOR 30.63 [4.51-208.17]) were associated with an increased odds of discharge on home oxygen. Comorbid hypertension (yes vs no, aOR 0.71 [0.66-0.77) was associated with a decreased odds of home oxygen. Within 60 d of hospital discharge, 50% had documentation of pulse oximetry; in this group, home oxygen was discontinued in 46%. CONCLUSIONS: About one in 4 subjects were prescribed home oxygen after hospitalization for COVID-19, even after guidelines established proven-effective treatments for acute illness. Evidence-based strategies to reduce the requirement for home oxygen in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 are needed.

Concordance With Screening and Treatment Guidelines for Chronic Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an often-asymptomatic complication of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that requires annual screening to diagnose. Patient-level factors linked to inadequate screening and treatment can inform implementation strategies to facilitate guideline-recommended CKD care. Objective: To identify risk factors for nonconcordance with guideline-recommended CKD screening and treatment in patients with T2D. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed at 20 health care systems contributing data to the US National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. To evaluate concordance with CKD screening guidelines, adults with an outpatient clinician visit linked to T2D diagnosis between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, and without known CKD were included. A separate analysis reviewed prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] of 30-90 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio [UACR] of 200-5000 mg/g) and an outpatient clinician visit for T2D between October 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed from July 8, 2022, through June 22, 2023. Exposures: Demographics, lifestyle factors, comorbidities, medications, and laboratory results. Main Outcomes and Measures: Screening required measurement of creatinine levels and UACR within 15 months of the index visit. Treatment reflected prescription of ACEIs or ARBs and SGLT2 inhibitors within 12 months before or 6 months following the index visit. Results: Concordance with CKD screening guidelines was assessed in 316 234 adults (median age, 59 [IQR, 50-67] years), of whom 51.5% were women; 21.7%, Black; 10.3%, Hispanic; and 67.6%, White. Only 24.9% received creatinine and UACR screening, 56.5% received 1 screening measurement, and 18.6% received neither. Hispanic ethnicity was associated with lack of screening (relative risk [RR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.14-1.18]). In contrast, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, and hypertension were associated with a lower risk of nonconcordance. In 4215 patients with CKD and albuminuria, 3288 (78.0%) received an ACEI or ARB; 194 (4.6%), an SGLT2 inhibitor; and 885 (21.0%), neither therapy. Peripheral arterial disease and lower eGFR were associated with lack of CKD treatment, while diuretic or statin prescription and hypertension were associated with treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with T2D, fewer than one-quarter received recommended CKD screening. In patients with CKD and albuminuria, 21.0% did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor or an ACEI or an ARB, despite compelling indications. Patient-level factors may inform implementation strategies to improve CKD screening and treatment in people with T2D.